Observations

Why Do Some Names Relate and Others Negate?

Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Gertrude Stein wrote, “A rose, is a rose, is a rose.” Shakespeare implies that names should make little difference in how something is valued. Stein suggests that a thing’s name can only be itself. Here in lies the two principal camps for the naming of new products.

Before any formal introduction, there is awareness: how something looks. If we see a sleek new vehicle named the “Cayenne” we can easily expect it to be a hot and spicy car. The name connects with the image. In this way, the name contributes to a better understanding of the product’s implied promise. When a connection is made between the product and its name, there is a good chance the new product will receive an opportunity to deliver on that promise. On the other hand, there is another point of view.

Generally, the pharmaceutical industry and its lawyers seek to avoid the possibility of legal entanglements by constructing names that neither reflect the purpose nor the promise of their products. If a connection between the product and its name is not made, or worse, misunderstood, more marketing dollars will be required if that product is ever to be taken seriously.

In the name game, there are no easy answers. Hard, smart work is demanded. Tightly defined communication parameters, along with experience and expertise, are required if new products are to have any opportunity for success. Like most refined skills, from driving a race car to teaching anything, what looks easy is far more difficult (even for smart people) at the professional level.